03-16-2009, 02:03 PM
|
#16
|
He who walks among the theists
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
|
Quote:
Kate wrote
Wiki says the giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) is an African even-toed ungulate mammal, the tallest of all land-living animal species, and the largest ruminant.
Aren't cows ruminants?
|
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that cows are larger than giraffes? Or is this some sort of dig at She Whose Name Shall Not Be Uddered (in which case, I don't get it either)?
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 02:55 PM
|
#17
|
Guest
|
Sorry...
Sorry about the poor spelling...just typed it in too fast. The i isn't even struck with a finger on the same fuckin' hand!
Two things:
(1) My profile's indication of my Catholicism is perhaps a misnomer. I did put that there for lack of a better term. I grew up Catholic, I am a theist, and I still recognize some of the sacerdotal rites of the church. This does not mean that I am a proponent of thinking the world is flat, or of boy-fucking, or any such garbage. If you insist on mocking the Catholic thing, go ahead and get it out of your system, but know that I am not your usual catholic and that the insult will probably not pertain to me.
(2) Foundational beliefs are had all the time. They stem from a response to the regress problem that surfaced as a result of skeptical discussions. The regress problem is simple. You start by saying something that you know to be the case...it can be anything. "I know that it is ~2:45 pm right now."
Skeptic: "how do you know that?"
You: "Because the clock says so"
Skeptic: "How do you know the clock is right?"
You: "Because a reliable sensory experience tells me so"
Skeptic: "How do you know it's reliable?"
etc.
The point of the regress problem is to show that the Pyrrhonian skeptic will just keep asking these questions no matter how many times you justify the knowledge with other knowledge. We have four distinct choices here:
1. We accept skepticism whole-heartedly and convert at once.
2. We accept infinitism and say that an infinite hierarchy of embedded knowledge is no problem at all.
3. We accept that all pieces of knowledge are justified by some other pieces of knowledge so that they all justify one another in a sort of holistic web [this is called coherentism]. If this one doesn't already make some sense, consider that scientific theory works very much in this way.
4. We accept that, at some point, we just stop playing and assert that the last piece of knowledge given in the hierarchy is foundational in nature; that is, it need not have any justification, at least in ways relevantly similar to the other pieces of knowledge we have justified.
Doxastic foundationalism is like #4, but does not take foundations to be knowledge. Here's why: almost every plausible [non-skeptical] epistemic account talks about justification being a necessary condition on knowledge. But if foundations are without justification [in this use of the word], and justification looks to be a necessary condition on knowledge, then foundations cannot be knowledge. What's the solution? As far as I'm concerned, doxastic foundationalism circumvents this issue, because not all beliefs are justified [or even justifiable]. Basic beliefs work in just this way.
So I hope that makes more precise what I am about. Do let me know if anything needs further clarification.
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 03:12 PM
|
#18
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
|
Quote:
sethhersch wrote
If you insist on mocking the Catholic thing, go ahead and get it out of your system, but know that I am not your usual catholic and that the insult will probably not pertain to me.
|
The real insult is simply "catholic", which you identified yourself with, which makes it seem like it does in fact pertain to you. OR is this classic christian double talk?
I know what you're thinking- "Did he diss three gods or only one?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this bullshit I've kinda lost track myself. But, being this is the catholic church, the most hypocritical religion in the world and would blow your head clean off if you tried to make sense of it, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel christy?" Well, do ya, punk?
You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 03:19 PM
|
#19
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Choobus wrote
The real insult is simply "catholic", which you identified yourself with, which makes it seem like it does in fact pertain to you. OR is this classic christian double talk?
I know what you're thinking- "Did he diss three gods or only one?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this bullshit I've kinda lost track myself. But, being this is the catholic church, the most hypocritical religion in the world and would blow your head clean off if you tried to make sense of it, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel christy?" Well, do ya, punk?
|
That's pretty classic.
You raise an excellent point, though: if I identify as kinda-sorta Catholic, and then claim that comments directed toward Catholicism don't pertain to me, is that inconsitent?
No, it isn't. It isn't Catholics that people usually mock, it is the absurdity of the church -- no arguments there. Like I said, not a big fan of the boy-fucking.
It would be akin to identifying some demographic, mentioning one of their habits, and then holding an individual culpable from that demographic for the habit, whether he/she participates in it or not. I am identified with an extended family full of alcoholic Irishmen. That doesn't mean that a mockery of Irish traditions pertains to me. I will, however, be much more offended at the mockery of Micks than I would at the boy-fucking priests.
Have at the priests. I ain't defending the church!
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 03:24 PM
|
#20
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
|
Even I don't think that boy-fucking is actually an official church policy. However, the basic tenents of catholicism are pretty retarded. The crackers, virgin-mothers, snakes and dresses and whatnot. Why identify with it al all. Even the catlickers themselves will say it's all or nothing (if you want to be a true catlicker). Obviously one cannot meaningfully generalize about large groups of people, but if they all share one common thing then it's not really generalizing. I'm sure there are lots of different types of people in NAMBLA, but they all share one thing in common, and that is the thing I am referring to when I say that all NAMBLA members are cunts. Similarly, by definition all catholics believe in some retarded shit and are, in a sense, retards.
You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 03:35 PM
|
#21
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,839
|
Quote:
sethhersch wrote
3. We accept that all pieces of knowledge are justified by some other pieces of knowledge so that they all justify one another in a sort of holistic web [this is called coherentism]. If this one doesn't already make some sense, consider that scientific theory works very much in this way.
4. We accept that, at some point, we just stop playing and assert that the last piece of knowledge given in the hierarchy is foundational in nature; that is, it need not have any justification, at least in ways relevantly similar to the other pieces of knowledge we have justified.
Doxastic foundationalism is like #4, but does not take foundations to be knowledge. Here's why: almost every plausible [non-skeptical] epistemic account talks about justification being a necessary condition on knowledge. But if foundations are without justification [in this use of the word], and justification looks to be a necessary condition on knowledge, then foundations cannot be knowledge. What's the solution? As far as I'm concerned, doxastic foundationalism circumvents this issue, because not all beliefs are justified [or even justifiable]. Basic beliefs work in just this way.
So I hope that makes more precise what I am about. Do let me know if anything needs further clarification.
|
Thanks for spelling it out in plain english Seth, appreciated.
thank goodness he's on our side
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 03:37 PM
|
#22
|
Guest
|
Good
Quote:
Choobus wrote
Even I don't think that boy-fucking is actually an official church policy. However, the basic tenents of catholicism are pretty retarded. The crackers, virgin-mothers, snakes and dresses and whatnot. Why identify with it al all. Even the catlickers themselves will say it's all or nothing (if you want to be a true catlicker). Obviously one cannot meaningfully generalize about large groups of people, but if they all share one common thing then it's not really generalizing. I'm sure there are lots of different types of people in NAMBLA, but they all share one thing in common, and that is the thing I am referring to when I say that all NAMBLA members are cunts. Similarly, by definition all catholics believe in some retarded shit and are, in a sense, retards.
|
I really don't want to be a true catlicker.
I still think it is a generalization to assert something about a group, even if the group shares that thing, but it is not an unfair one. In fact, such a generalization is perfectly permissible if it reflects the group that accurately. The trouble is getting it to reflect the group accurately.
As for my liking certain traditions, it's admittedly a comfort thing. I feel very plugged in and centered when I am in a cathedral. I'm not quite sure why, but it's a neat feeling, and not the kind of thing I'm prepared to toss away for total, vehement rationalism. That doesn't mean that when I take communion I actually feel spiritually connected at all. I can recall very vividly being the thorn in the side of the Catechism teachers. "Why would some dude give us his body to eat!?"
"It's figurative"
"Okay...figuratively, why would some dude give us his body to eat!!???"
I don't actually subscribe to most of the rites of the church, but there's a kind of nostalgia involved...mostly because I wan't one of the boys who got fucked!
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 03:54 PM
|
#23
|
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,428
|
Quote:
nkb wrote
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that cows are larger than giraffes? Or is this some sort of dig at She Whose Name Shall Not Be Uddered (in which case, I don't get it either)?
|
Yes, due to the whole catlicking thing going on here. Have you seen my shovel?
"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 03:55 PM
|
#24
|
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,428
|
"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 04:19 PM
|
#25
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chandler- Arizona
Posts: 14,227
|
Quote:
sethhersch wrote
Hey there all.
Two years ago I had a premonition that I would end up a Christian. It seemed in many ways counterintuitive that I should know the intellectual end without being apprised of the means, and every day since has been an interesting attempt to answer some really fundamental questions. It's not often that an epistemologist is faced with trying to reconcile premonitions with plausible substantive epistemic accounts -- it's also not that easy. But it is proving to be fruitful. I wonder what place other propositional attitudes have in epistemology?
I am here because I can't get good [or honest] debate edgewise out of most theists. Many are just too afraid of the repercussion of placing their religious beliefs under scrutiny. I wonder what the value is of a belief that hasn't been given such a trial...It's really too bad that we proponents of philosophy don't have the same bargaining chip -- "You must believe in the Uniformity of Nature thesis or you will be summarily relegated to the corner for eternity, wearing only a dunce cap..."
I am NOT here to end up a misquoted, poorly characterized punching dummy. Please take exception only with what I say, not what you think I am. It ought to be in virtue of the arguments used that debates are won or lost.
Thanks for reading, and I trust I will be put to the fire to really defend the things I think are true, and I relish the opportunity that awaits to discover those parts of my web of beliefs that are inconsistent. If I don't tease them out now, I may never do so.
-Seth
|
Welcome to the forum Seth. BTW here is where your beliefs, wrought by1700 years of: Christian distortions misinformation & deluded thinking came from, the 5,000 year old Egyptian religion. Enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOBDK...e=channel_page
Christians and other folks infected with delusional beliefs think and reason like schizophrenics or temporal lobe epileptics. Their morality is dictated by an invisible friend called Jesus.
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 04:56 PM
|
#26
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,839
|
Seth, why do you capitalise all the letters in god?
thank goodness he's on our side
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 05:07 PM
|
#27
|
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,428
|
He likes capitals?
"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 06:31 PM
|
#28
|
Guest
|
Yes
Quote:
calpurnpiso wrote
|
I am familiar with religious history. I studied with a prominent Assyriologist for some time.
I'm not sure what qualitative similarity between religions points to. Oftentimes the similarities are presumed to be polemic, but I'm not convinced. Neither am I convinced that the material was just ripped off between religions. I am obviously no more certain in these kinds of assumptions than anyone, so I usually abstain from using those loose connections as indicators of any kind.
I don't ignore their existence, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to affect the truth value of a proposition like e.g. GOD exists.
Perhaps there is another perspective to be had here..?
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 06:37 PM
|
#29
|
Guest
|
Capitalization
Quote:
dogpet wrote
Seth, why do you capitalise all the letters in god?
|
I capitalize the letters in GOD as a sign of respect. I don't maintain a characterization of GOD that is quite the same as most theists, but I think that I believe approximately in the GOD of Abraham. Of course, it's hard to be certain because I just don't have time to tease out what exactly is entailed by a belief in such a supernatural being -- what are the textual, metaphysical, and logical certainties of such a being?
Admittedly I've not yet answered this to my own satisfaction.
In sum, I want to show a kind of respect to the GOD in which I believe...that's all. It's not a psychodrama, it's just a consistent thing for a theist to do.
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 07:28 PM
|
#30
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
|
Quote:
Kate wrote
Wiki says the giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) is an African even-toed ungulate mammal, the tallest of all land-living animal species, and the largest ruminant.
Aren't cows ruminants?
|
Yes, but cows cannot climb trees or use logic.
"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:20 AM.
|